I'm not mixing them up. I'm stating there OUGHT TO BE morality in science. Disconnecting science from possible problems by shoving them in other fields is disingenious. You could say a problem created by a scientist is economic in origin. But that's a weak argument. Most societal elements (including religion) are influenced by this sphere. This also counts for the scientific sphere.

You're trying to decouple the pure scientific theory (which is in itself innocent) from the people who perform science. This is in no way grounded in any reality. Just as any scripture (religious or otherwise) can be seen as pure and harmless. It's the practical application that really determines the morality of the issue. Science and reason are ethereal concepts, they're grounded in reality and we should judge them based on practical application as we do with everything.

Wrong again, science is the OBJECTIVE pursue of knowledge and truth, it's everything but dogmatic, dogmas cannot be argued with or disproved as those holding dogmas do not accept questioning. Science is the opposite of that.

Also science is not a tool as you say, it's the search for what can be methodologically demonstrated. Those who use what science has produced as tools to pursue their own agendas are NOT motivated by science, they are motivated by greed, religion, politics etc....

It's really hard to discuss this because you guys don't understand what science is, the fact you compare it to religion or think that science is in itself some kind of political force with some kind of hidden agenda makes it difficult to discuss the issue.

Definitely religion because the survival of a religion depends on followers throwing away their skepticism which leads to dogmatism. Science, on the other hand, operates differently as it relies on empiricism. It is also flexible as conclusions can be changed based on new findings.

Again the very words you use demonstrate you don't understand science. "The people who perform science"? What the hell does that mean?

People don't perform science cause science is KNOWLEDGE, Science is NOT a tool or a thing that you use, a gun is not science, the principles of compression of gasses inside a metal chamber full of a chemical powder producing a sudden expansion of gas that can project a lump of matter at high speed IS SCIENCE. The people who use those principles to build a gun and sell it to someone else that aims that gun at a person in order to kill that person, this is NOT SCIENCE it's politics, religion, greed etc.

The opposite of science is ignorance which is what religion feeds on and the fact we want to understand how the universe works is science and as soon as you try to gain power through knowledge you are NOT doing science anymore you are doing politics, religion, economy etc.

You're trying to accuse science of what religion, politics, greed, money etc.. are guilty of. The only motivation of science is knowledge. a country that bombs people to kill them is interested in POWER, not science, such a country does research in order to maintain their power cause they need better bombs than other countries, but it's POWER, POLITICS, RELIGION etc that motivates them. NO COUNTRY will EVER bomb another country cause that other country has better universities or a better education, it will bomb it cause it has better weapons and could invade you or a better economy which you want to take from them, or cause they don't follow your religion etc... But NEVER cause of better teachers or cause they have more curiosity in astrophysics than your country does.

You're treated it as some kind of quasi-religion or dogmatic ideal. That's why I said that. By the way, you should look up what dogmatic means. I'm not saying it's a religion at all.  I hate when people try to make something seem that it's alot more than it really is. It's merely a means to an end. It's a tool or process used to research, invent and  create. It's always used with some goal in mind. 

In fact nothing of that has to do with science itself but with the people using inventions quite selfishly. And we can't destroy 'the planet' with global warning, just ourselves. At the same time science might be the key for saving earth in case of a 'global killer' meteor or something like that.

One main problem actually is the 'make the earth subjugated' bullshit and other stuff like that.

I'm not trying to accuse anything. I'm just trying to show you that science isn't in itself meaningful without scientists, without practical applications. Science isn't a divine principle that's ellevated above anything else. You give attributes to science that contradict your statement. People can seek knowledge through science. Science can't seek anything. Science itself is a vat of knowledge we can tap into, but Sciense IS NOT knowledge. Purely theoretical, these concepts are not one and the same.

But this is quite useless, so we have to look at practical applications. What I'm asking you is to look at reality, not at ideals, which is what you're ellevating science to by completely decoupling it from it's practical applications.

The both combined in certain hands can be either a blessing or a recipe for disaster...

It's pretty much a formula population x living standard. Divided by a sustainable production factor is our humanity footprint. Which already exceeds the earth's potential to feed us. And because of that  the potential of our planet to feed us is also declining due to deforestation, nutrient depletion, waste, desertation, pollutants and climate change. Which decrease the ammount of arable soil and the availability of clean water. But population and living standards are both very important, but if people would at least produce in a circular way instead of a linear way the sustainable production factor would grow imensely. If 3 billion people died because of a new deadly virus or become inpotent it would also take a huge chunk out of the current footprint we have on earth, same if people would simply consume only what they need.

I'm only trying to make you and others understand that science is not a force with an agenda like politics and religion are. Science simply means knowledge and knowledge is above politics, religion, capitalism and all those forces that have a specific agenda. It's very ironic that you say I treat science as a quasi-religion because science is EVERYTHING religion is not.

You don't understand what science is since you keep saying it's merely a means to an end or a tool. Science is the pursue of truth through methodology. When you look at the moon, if you think it's up there by magic or cause it's a God you are the victim of religion and ignorance. But the second you start thinking about why the moon exists, how does it stay up there without falling, when and how did it form, you are doing science, when you apply methodology and experiment to figure out the truth behind the existence and state of the moon, you are using science because you seek the true nature of the universe you are doing science. That has NOTHING to do with those who use technology to invade other countries or to impose their religion or to obtain economic dominance, those people have a specific agenda of greed, they have no desire to understand the universe, they merely wish power, money, dominion of all sorts.

The difference between science and religion/politics/power is like day and night and it's sad so many people still don't understand that.